Sometimes you’ll put up a good fight and lose. Sometimes you’ll hold on really hard and realize there is no choice but to let go.

Acceptance is a small, quiet room.

–

Cheryl Strayed

==

“The whole is simpler than the sum of its parts.”

–

Willard Gibbs

====================

While attaining leadership positions is often a difficult weaving and winding path strewn with obstacles, losing your leadership role is pretty easy. It is easy because, well, while the compass to actually being successful leadership has a clear center line <uniting in a common cause> the path has to be wide enough to accommodate all the lanes necessary so that the organization can fit on the path <you cannot leave some behind and you cannot just take the “we few” along for the ride>.

Alignment in business is always a difficult thing.

Shit.

Alignment in any group environment is always a difficult thing.

Alignment is a multi lane highway, not just offering a center line, which needs to be continuously paved with a deepening trust and cooperation. But, suffice it to say, nothing kills trust & cooperation faster than lack of trust in competency. In other words “not knowing your shit.” Words need to meet actions, actions need to meet decisions and decisions need to meet the greater needs & wants of the whole not just the parts.

All leaders, all of us, have made promises as we assumed responsibility. Some were hard promises and some were hopeful promises. As we shifted into leadership maturity we learned, often the hard way, how to shade the promises properly. What I mean by that is while in our minds something was a hopeful promise, in our employee’s ears it was a real promise <albeit … the savvier ones were skeptical>.

Ah,skeptical. I will suggest the ‘skepticals’ are the most important employees in an organization in terms of “mutual progress” and the ultimate success objective. Skepticals are the ‘swing employees’, i.e., the ones who held your organization together or tore it apart.

The skepticals listened to how the hopeful promises were shared. The skepticals discerned whether you … well … “knew your shit.” This is more the attitudinal part.

The skeptical also view with an eye toward another aspect. What you actually do, or did as things proceed, with your hopeful promise. This is the functional part.

While any business leader worth half a shit only offers ‘hopeful promises’ which contain at least a glimmer of possibility those words then have to shift into “what we are gonna do to attempt to make that glimmer a reality.”

Oh. Yeah. This is the plans, the what we are gonna do, that kind of pragmatic practical shit.

This is where skepticals really own your ass.

They are the careful readers of promises who sit back and ask themselves whether they want to believe such a thing badly enough to overlook its improbability. They are the ones who can actually drive the organization through improbability towards probability.

Yeah. Even more so than the delusional rabid believers. Why? Because the ‘believers’ are far too often blind to the real obstacles and wildly bludgeon their way toward some objective no matter how improbable the objective. Believers have a nasty tendency to create carnage.

It is the Skepticals who create a path which is sustainable.

Skepticals are always, well, skeptical of the ‘new thoughts’ you share with them and relentlessly compare it against not only what they know but also against whatever other information is out there <they are the ones who maddeningly demand “have you done this before and where”>. Skepticals are always, well, skeptical enough they focus on what I believe the Intelligence Community calls ‘expectability.’

Skepticals understand that when promises are made there is a significant difference between ‘it might be true’ versus ‘you can’t prove it’s not true.’ They are quite good at recognizing when you are misleading versus when you are honestly trying to get the organization somewhere … even if it does seem slightly improbable.

Look. No one can be sure of anything 100%. And an organization is never 100% aligned when a new leader steps up to assume the responsibility. Therefore you, everyone, assigns a rating to information. And an organization with a strong skeptical segment most typically turns to these skepticals, not the believers, for some guidance on how to rate the leaders words & promises. Outside of the rabid few, an organization is usually not willing to run right out of the gate with a new leader <and we who have led know that>.

You assume as you step to the front of the room that the Skepticals look at you with an uneasy sense you are simply playing your role and not really worthy of the role. They seek to get behind what they, skeptically, view as the mask of who you are and what you offer.

You learn quickly that you, and consequently the organization, are doomed out of the gate if they end up frustrated. Frustrated either that they cannot discern what is behind the mask or frustrated that what they can see looks less than what is needed to deliver upon the promises made or frustrated by what they view as “making shit up” versus “knowing your shit.”

I know everyone knows this, but a leader can get fired for any number of reasons. The ones most overlooked are:

Failure to convert skepticals <attitudinally>

Failure to convert skepticals <functionally>

Converting Skepticals is always the key to organizationally unity <sorry, no, it is not breeding excitement among the fewer believers nor is it attempting to placate the non-believers>.

I say that to make another point.

Skepticals reside in the promised land for a leader. One foot in hopeful promise and one foot in practical promise.Most good leaders recognize that there is a significant difference between war against the status quo and war against stagnancy. Status quo, most typically, has aspects of shit that keeps the trains running. In other words, not all status quo is bad and throwing out the baby with the bath water is never good.

And, therefore, you learn very very quickly as a leader you just cannot lie and that hyperbole kills you with Skepticals. You realize it is dangerous, to the organizational success and your own success, to embrace any kind of absurd unblinking willingness to look your people in the eye and flat out lie to them. You just cannot do shit like say “things are going great … just the way they planned” when to the skeptical, and possibly the organization as a whole, it sure appears like “there is a lot going wrong.”

This believability gap can very quickly shift from a simple hiccup on the path or crack in the alignment plan to a crevasse of dysfunction. Regardless. None of that suggests alignment or unity. It all undercuts competency and creates concerns with regard to capabilities, planning and implementation … all of which are the foundation on which any leader stands upon <even more so than vision and hope>.

Discrepancies force people to choose between what they hear and what they see and what they actually know in their own experience.

A leader can only create an upside down world for so long before the skepticals decide to make it right again – whether the leader wants it to be that way or not.

In the end?

Ignore the Skepticals at your own peril. Any successful leader will tell you focusing on Believers will not only put your own career in danger … but it puts the organization, as a whole, at risk.

“By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd.”

–

The Civil Servants’ Year Book, “The Organizer” January 1934

========

Ok. This is about the fallacy of the “us versus them” narrative. One of the first temptations in business differentiation is the ‘us versus them’ narrative. Not only is it a natural instinct to identify an enemy <them> to compete against it also naturally generates a competitive spirit as well as survival spirit.

It is incredibly tempting, but incredibly wrong.

Frankly, it is what lazy business leaders and strategists do.

And, in their laziness, they create what is more often than not a false narrative <how can they be the enemy if you hire some of them?>, but it also falls apart as you realize that ‘the enemy’ often has the same intentions you do and often has some aspects of business product, organization, thinking … that you actually like.

That is the failing of an ‘us versus them’ narrative.

Well. That is one failing. The ‘us versus them’ narrative is strewn with not only failings, but danger in the larger scheme of things.

Often it is rooted in some ‘conspiracy theme’ within ‘them.’ Them always seem to have a nefarious intent to rule the world, or crush our thinking, or take something away from us or … well … basically undermine all that is good & right about the world “us” sees as what is good & right <and ‘common sense’ to ‘us’>. This theme can tear your business culture apart through paranoia as well as wasted energy constantly defining ‘what is good & right’ <because those damn “thems” keep trying to show us it isn’t good & right>.

Let me suggest several things with regard to the underpinnings of ‘us versus them.’

– Common sense is relative to perspective.

Contrary to popular opinion much of common sense is not universal <therefore less than common>. My main proof point for that is easily the United Nations Human Bill of Rights. One would think there are some common sense beliefs that underline all human behavior, well, at least until you try and gather all the countries in the world and get them to agree to them.

People are no different.

Common sense advocates typically suggest what I call “headline beliefs” of which almost all of us quite easily grasp and nod our head to. It is when we get to the story outlining the hows & whats where everyone starts losing their minds. An ‘us versus them’ narrative in the hands of a charismatic leader can dwell in the headlines. Unfortunately, there is such a thing as ‘day to day behavior’ which needs laws & rules & guidelines in order to establish a relatively fair game in this thing called Life. Businesses are exactly the same.

Here is what I am saying.

In discussing a headline common sense thought 90% of people are all in lock step.

In discussing the details under the headline common sense thought 90% of people are all in slightly different places.

That, alone, is one of the key reasons most reasonable business leaders avoid an ‘us versus them’ narrative.

– Conspiracies may exist but they most typically are within the purview of the few and not the many.

What this means is that there may possibly a small group of people scheming something up, but they remain few because <mainly> the many have no palette for what that few have to offer. In addition the ‘few’ scheming rarely are powerful people.

Yup. Despite what conspiracy theorists posit about cabals of powerful people somehow guiding the globe on its axis, most powerful people who would have an inclination to involve themselves in some nefarious scheming like this would have no desire to collaborate <they are typically of dictator mentality>.

In addition to the non-collaboration aspect the majority of powerful people have less interest in running the world, they are more focused on defending their own empire <and ego>. That is exactly what happens in business.

These people may truly be ‘them’ to ‘us’, but they are not our enemy — they are simply more likely to be indifferent to ‘us.’ It is difficult to invest in an us versus them narrative when ‘them’ doesn’t even care. Most businesses avoid “us versus them” because they have enough trouble maintaining integrity within an organization to have to bring in the whole concept of “thems” manipulating anything.

– Complexity not simplicity.

I could invest page after page outlining how complexity destroys the oversimplified ‘us versus them’ narrative, but I will focus on one aspect – people can rarely be easily bucketed into simplistic character, attitude & behavior descriptions.

Not all accountants are boring or socially inept.

Not all conservatives are against abortions.

Not all liberals are socialists.

Not all religious people are close minded.

Not all French people like wine.

Not all Hawaiians know how to surf.

In business, and sports, you learn this quickly <it seems like politics hasn’t received this memo yet>.

You meet ‘them’ and, uh oh, you not only find you kind of like them, but more often than not <yikes!>, they believe some of the same things you do. The ‘us versus them” narrative can only exist in an environment where oversimplification has a chance to live. Business is anything but simple. So while a crappy, or lazy, leader may find some initial success rallying the organizational troops with an “us versus them” narrative it all falls part pretty quickly.

That is why business people avoid the ‘us versus them’ narrative.

Anyway. I read somewhere that if you truly want to defend liberty, the first thing you should do is defend the liberty of people you like the least. But instead, in today’s world, we seem to be spending more time focused on defending the liberty of “me”, and what “me believes” first. Even businesses struggle with this <under the guise of “building a strong culture”>.

Let’s be clear. Leaders — of companies, of organizations, of countries, of any rather difficult to manage and align group of people — realize that if they intend to make something happen that it just needs to be done <sometimes> acting in the best interest of ALL who they lead and do it without discussion because discussion slows the process down.

Is this a conspiracy? Nope.

This is leading. Sometimes you get it right <and good things happen and you never explain all the decision you made without inviting opinions of others> and sometimes you get it wrong <and bad things happen and you (a) keep your mouth shut and just hope the problem goes away or (b) end up explaining every decision minutiae in extraordinary excruciating public discourse>.

I am not suggesting there are not better ways to communicating and aligning an organization than simply ‘doing & telling later’, nor am I suggesting transparency isn’t important in terms of uniting, but I am suggesting that in business sometimes a leader makes a decision because it has to be made, and it is made with the best intentions for “all” and not with bad intent for “us” and a better intent for “them.”

And maybe this is where businesses have truly learned to avoid the ‘us versus them’ narrative.

If you plant the narrative and constantly water it into a healthy belief system within a business, it can then very very quickly become an unhealthy integral part of an organizational DNA viewpoint. Side to side <department to department> as well as down to up <workers – perceived doers/non intellectuals – to management – perceived non-doers/intellectuals>.

Lastly. Here is what the good business leaders have learned as to the most insidious organizational aspect in an ‘us versus them’ narrative:

… take care of their own <the ‘us’> even to the detriment of the “all”

By the way. Crappy leaders love this because it absolves them of responsibility and they can always point to external ‘them’ as the reason why ‘us’ isn’t getting what they believe they deserve.

Regardless. The narrative permits ‘their own’ to be constant victims of whatever ‘them forces’ that are constantly scheming to impede or crush the ‘us’ personal ambitions.

Part of the appeal of us versus them is it’s simplicity.

In a complex, changing world, it is tempting to reduce multifaceted issues to the us-and-them narrative.

The narrative eliminates any context thru oversimplification. Interestingly, the oversimplification actually creates conspiracies/conspiracy speculation and enhances fears by suggesting the complexity doesn’t exist <and people know in their heads there has to be more and create the ‘more’ all on their own>. This, in turn, permits everyone to skip facts and go immediately to emotion from which point “we the people” <whoever ‘we’ is> resides on one side and “the system” or “some idiot who cannot do the right thing” or “a cabal of dishonest untrustworthy thems” on the other. This narrative is particularly tempting to the weak leader these days because general mistrust of everything is at an all time high.

The charismatic crappy leader suggests that the business <the ‘us’ in the equation> has a plan, a good plan, a plan that really will not work only if the ‘thems’ work their mysterious wiles. Trust therefore resides with ‘us’ and mistrust resides with ‘them.’

The us versus them narrative is seductive. Aspects of it sound great, frankly, to any and all of us. That’s why it is so compelling if you are not careful.But the world, and business, is more complex than ‘us versus them.’ A good leader, a leader who understands you are seeking success in the moment, today, tomorrow and next month/year/decade will weigh the true costs, and effects, of investing in the us versus them narrative beyond simply winning.

Ponder. And listen closely to the charismatic jesters who lean in on “use versus them” rhetoric.

=================

“Too many people are only willing to defend rights that are personally important to them. It’s selfish ignorance, and it’s exactly why totalitarian governments are able to get away with trampling on people.

Freedom does not mean freedom just for the things I think I should be able to do.Freedom is for all of us. If people will not speak up for other people’s rights, there will come a day when they will lose their own.”

Normalcy is functional. That doesn’t sound flashy nor does it sound defendable or even worthy of defending. In fact. It almost sounds like we should be hungrily scanning about for some ‘new normal.’

That said. “Normal” may not be greatly functional nor does it means there isn’t any dysfunctionality but, in general, it is a mix of good and bad and average in which the majority of people accept it as just part of what Life is supposed to be like. In other words. Everything just seems like it is in its place. So. For the most part most people do not see any reason to raise their voices complaining nor do they sing out loud praises. It is what it is and, well, silence about it seems the order of the day.

That’s why when someone starts yelling about shit most of us just find it annoying, and ignore it.

Note: To be clear. Normal can mask a shitload of issues – good & bad. Inequality, the net positives of globalization & the negatives. The net positives of regulations & the negative of overregulation. The maddening underbelly of individual responsibility (the narrative that if everyone works hard they will be successful).

Regardless. This is where normal enters into a danger zone. The shouting veers into the conspiracies, the fringe and the wacky almost suggesting the normal is the abnormal and the abnormal should be considered normal. All of a sudden, in its silence, normal becomes complicit to the abnormal and, worse, normal becomes the “them” in an us-versus-them narrative.

Look.

I know a shitload of people will suggest that ‘normal’ is defined by the individual and how they view life but, in general, at one end of the ‘how to live your life’ spectrum is wacko eccentric person and the other end is bland milquetoast-boring-to-tears person.

Most of us reside somewhere in the middle of all that.

I tend to believe the problem is in how we most often have this discussion. When we talk about living a ‘normal’ life it almost seems destined for some boredom and certainly when you decide to sit back with some self-reflection, uhm …, it will most likely be generously dipped in some disappointment. Then, on the other hand, it seems like a choice to live an ‘anything but normal’ life it almost seems destined for some sanity challenges and certainly some self-reflection generously dipped in some discouragement.

Yikes. So your choice is either disappointment, or discouragement, all wrapped up in a feeling of some injustice occurring.

Yeah. All of a sudden normal is painted in a broad brush of injustice. And it is within that ‘injustice’ in which normal’s silence is damned because the angry, the ones who see conspiracies somewhere (in the cracks of normal) which create their sense of injustice – are loud. They shout. They can be rough around the edges supported by some slick few who egg them on. And they are not silent.

The unsilent slip into the cracks of good normal and pry open some of the bad normal and take advantage. They use slivers of truth (injustice), tack on a fact or two and all of a sudden they hold up a new new normal for people to consider. And, if you are not paying attention (or if normal remains silent), all of a sudden the lone voice is deemed worthy of consideration.

This is not only crazy, it dangerous.

Yeah. Sometimes the shit you do may be out of the mainstream, but 99% of the time it is not unacceptable to everyone. It is just is not the normal everyday 100% of the time shit people see or hear.

Whether you like it or not … suggesting ‘normal’ is completely self-defined is … well … stupid.

Yes. You should have your own way of seeing the world and the life you’re living.

Yes. You should feel it is normal <as long as it is not a ‘statement’ but rather a natural extension of your ‘self’>.

Yes. You should accept the idea that other people may feel differently about your version of normal.

All that said here is where I think normal and abnormal go into conflict.

Yes. You should understand that normal is actually defined by some standard operating procedures of the people, society & culture as a whole.

And, no, I am not suggesting some of the wacky crap society thrusts upon an individual <society tells me how I should be stuff>, but rather the fact cultures, civilizations in a broader perspective, define some accepted rules of behavior – some “what I should do” stuff.

Let’s call them ‘core life action basics.’ These are some normal principles which everyone should do and think in a normal day and a normal life.

Here is what I believe.

The good news for people who balk at ‘normal.’ The great thing about culture is it tends to give an individual a lot of room to expand upon these things. You can go about your life wearing whatever clothes you want and saying a bunch of different words as personal expression beyond the core. I call that ‘window dressing stuff.’ In other words, I can dress up my core ‘normality crap’ in pretty much anything I want and express it with almost any words I want.

The trouble occurs mostly around the fact that some individuals infringe upon the core, change the core and sometimes do things which do not meet what most people would accept as accepted normal behavior.

Here is not just a Life truth, but a civilization truth:a culture cannot permit that ‘abnormal normal’ to become normalized simply because they are shouting about some claimed injustice. While we often suggest it takes courage to express yourself in some ‘not-so-normal’ ways it actually takes even more courage to defend core normality. In other words. Sometimes normal demands NOT being silent.

When it comes to this topic the bravest people in the world are not the ones who stand out through self-expression of self-identity even if that identity is ‘not the normal’, but rather the people who unflinchingly defend normal core beliefs, principles & behaviors and unflinchingly express these ‘normal’ ideas.

I imagine the problem is that those people are not interesting enough to make splashy headlines nor are they boring enough to be masticated for being milquetoast. And, yet, they were the bravest of us all. They chose to be normal & defend the good found within normal and fought relentlessly for both.

In the end.

Normalcy is silent at the moment. Why should it speak? It is what it is. Yet. In a world in which many of the advocates for abnormal, the fringe, the conspiracies, are shouting at the top of their lungs, can normal remain silent? Can normal AFFORD to be silent? I do not believe it can.

Yes. Some things do need to be fixed. Yes. Some things need to be designed better (how we work, how society interacts, how globalization works, etc). But to suggest that ‘normal’ is bad in & of itself is wrong. Normal offers, well, sanity, some consistency, threads of functionality. Maybe we just need to be optimizing normal and not seeking some ‘new normal.’

Anyway.

We need not always shout, but, normal needs to defend itself. It is time for normal to start fighting back. It is time for normal to not be silent.

At that moment I felt like we were at a ‘tide in the affairs of men’ and being silent was not an option. My view has not changed at all; however, my attention has been drawn toward, well, normalcy. While I believe Trump is malignant to democracy, freedom and being enlightened (he espouses ignorance) his greater malignancy is toward normal. He seems to thrive on suggesting normal, everything that exists within it presently, is bad and ‘normal’ should be defined through isolationism and a 1950’s lens. I say all that because maybe “I will be defined” by how I best define what is a good normal and what we should be doing to fix the bad normal.

“Owning my own home symbolizes so much to me. I have been my happiest when I have been in my very own place and I am really looking forward to that. Stability and routine are vital to us in our day to day life … so moving in is really going to settle us down for a while and i will find a lot of peace of mind in that.”

=======================

I often believe we confuse stability and consistency, regardless, stability is an interesting topic. Its very personal to each person <and it always surprises me a little when someone assumes what is important to them for ‘stability’ should be, or is, the same for everyone else>. I also believe how you define stability kind of defines you <in a way>.

A good friend just bought a home after struggling through several years and wrote the above quote. Stability, and all the things associated with it, reentered the world for this person. Anyway. It made me think about how important stability is to, well, everyone – at least in some form or fashion. I tend to believe we seem to find stability in our work lives fairly well and fairly easily. Stability in work is rarely what you may think is obvious. For stability is not really a ‘safe’ job <in terms of employment security>, it is actually what we naturally gravitate to in terms of the daily ‘to do’s’ of what we do. Frankly, it is the things that come most easily to us and the things we like to do at work.

Stability in the workplace is found in the form of comfort in a couple of things:

knowing what you are doing

knowing you are doing it well <or competently>

knowing what you do means something to someone

It ain’t money. It ain’t job security. It is about the actual ‘doing’ where the strongest stability is found <because it is actually transferable & movable>. Everyone should note I emphasized ‘doing’ because this is at the heart of ‘work.’ I debate with anyone that people do not have to work to gain some meaning. Work is ‘doing’ <with multiple feedback mechanisms which provide value cues intrinsically & extrinsically>.

Moving on.

Anyway. For some odd reason it seems tougher to find this easy stability in real life. I tend to believe that happens because of ‘over stimulation’ <Life clutters us with responsibilities & worries & a nonstop schedule of ‘possible things to do’>.

Regardless. Whether we recognize it or not we build, or seek to build, some stability into our lives, i.e., something or some things that provides a steadying influence. I am not talking about money. I am talking about something, or somethings, that emotionally settle us so that we can deal with all the other crap that is going on around us.

It is important, and I would suggest, almost vital to have some emotional stability because it is from that which we leverage and make progress <in Life & business>.

All that said. When I heard my friend was buying a house, and what it meant, it made me think of several things:

– How everyone builds some type of stability onto their lives <or it would be sheer chaos>

– What is my stability

– My uncomfortable relationship with permanence <and how I, and not everyone else, has that uncomfortable relationship>

Building stability in Life

Everyone has some stability. And everyone pretty much defines it very personally. Sure. We can be flippant when asked; our house <home>, our family <or parents>, our loved ones is typically the knee jerk response.

And sometimes it is the real truth. It’s easy. It makes sense. But sometimes it is not the obvious. Sure. We thought it was an easy answer, but it is not. Look. I am not telling you what your stability answer is I’m just suggesting it may be deeper than you think.

Regardless. Some of us look at stability in a different way. It isn’t like an unmoving object, but rather a constantly moving object that we try our best to bind to as it moves by.

William Blake said … “I wouldn’t bind myself to a joy, I would kiss the joy as it flew.”

That’s as close to a definition for this version of stability that I could find.

Regardless. We all seek and, I imagine, have ‘some’ stability in our lives. We may create it mentally and always go ‘home’ to it when we need to steady ourselves or it may be something tangible like a home or a person or a thing. Whatever it is that stability actually defines us. Yeah, yeah, yeah … someone will argue with me on this and I will probably get a nasty <but smart> note from a psychologist or behavioral expert reader, but in my simple mind how we define our stability is a reflection of something deep inside us. Either a Maslow thing <self esteem, self actualization, self-whatever> or simply something that given our past experiences <good or bad> that settles us into a ‘good place’ mentally.

This place, or thing, provides comfort, maybe happiness, but most absolutely represents the calm eye in the hurricane of Life.

Bottom line? We all have something that stabilizes us. Figure it out and you at least know something really really valuable about yourself.

What my stability is.

When I thought about this it was a simple answer – books <and yes this will ultimately lead me to my uncomfortable relationship with permanence>. I find comfort in words and how the words make me think and feel and expand my experiences thru fictional & non fictional lives & stories. I find comfort in sifting thru the real & the unreal to formulate some Life truths, well, at least my Life truths.

I don’t need a home. I don’t need a high falutin’ title. I just need some books. That is my stability.

I could probably live in a studio apartment with bookshelves all around me and I would feel grounded.

For a period of time I thought my dog was my stability … he was a rock of support in Life. Instead I found he simply complimented my Life during the amazing time he was with me. He transitioned me from one point in my life to another and, possibly, in some weird way he tried to remind me of my true stability because throughout his life the only thing he consistently chewed on when I wasn’t around were the corners of books. To this day I have dozens of books with just one corner chewed off.

Maybe he had a comfortable relationship with my stability and found stability in my stability.

I know. Sounds odd, but pets often have a way of showing you things that you don’t really see about yourself <note:point of that little story was you can uncover your stability in a variety of ways>.

First. A nomad. I’m willing to walk through life anywhere at any time as long as I have a books in hand. My stability is transient able to go wherever I go. In fact, I imagine standing still too long in one place makes me feel uncomfortable & possibly even unstable.

Second. Maybe I’m a sick person. Say what?

“Library is a hospital for the mind.”

Maybe I have a sick mind that always needs assistance to stay healthy rather than have healthy mind that seeks to feed itself with nutrition <because just as I eat some crappy food I certainly read some crappy stuff>.

Interesting thought. But hey … anyone who admits that their stability could possibly fit in their pocket for god’s sake probably has some mental issues don’t they?

My uncomfortable relationship with permanence.

Ok. This is probably most embodied in the fact that I don’t have a tattoo <and most people would guess that I would have one>, but instead I think I will reflect upon my choice for what gives me stability – my books. They are an impermanent permanent feature in my life. They easily travel and I can have hundreds, heck, thousands of which to pick up and put down and read and reread. Stability, to me, in the traditional sense, well, I have always equated with stagnancy.

Is that fair? Probably not, but it is what I have in my pea like brain.

It may be that I have moved so many times in my life, made some friends and met some fabulous amazing people in each place, and have gone back and while the people are still amazing … the place is … well … emptier. Nathaniel Hawthorne said it best:

=============

“… they resolved to go back to their own land; because the years have a kind of emptiness when we spend too many of them on a foreign shore. But … if we do return, we find that the native air has lost its invigorating quality, and that life has shifted its reality to the spot where we have deemed ourselves only temporary residents.

Thus, between two countries, we have none at all.”

=============

Now. I certainly admit that if I ever stopped moving maybe the spot wouldn’t shift its reality … or maybe I would shift with it and therefore it wouldn’t lose its invigorating quality. But. In my nomad world I have discovered you just cannot go back. You can go back to memories <which are great> but you cannot go back to a place.

All that said my permanence is found in books. Which I imagine suggests that my permanence is lurking somewhere in my mind … traveling with me wherever I go.

I envy people who find stability in a home because it makes them happy, comfortable and fulfilled.

I envy people who find stability in whatever type of permanence they have.

But I don’t envy them enough to give up my sense of stability and permanence.

I have tried their permanence and it has failed for me.

I have no clue what that says about me from a psychological standpoint and I am fairly sure I don’t want to know.

In the end.

I realized how I defined my stability said a lot about me and what is important to me. I don’t recommend a lot of self reflection, but this seems like a valuable use of someone’s time. I believe its valuable because I would assume if you haven’t clearly defined what makes you feel stable you run the risk of not having the platform you need to leverage from to be, and do, the best you can be & do.

I would also guess you run the risk of feeling adrift on occasion and not really knowing why.

Take a moment and think about how you define stability.Go below the obvious and really think about it. It seems important.

“… for a moment we might have a glimpse of ourselves and of our world islanded in its stream of stars – pilgrims of hope, voyaging between horizons across the eternal seas of space and time.” –

Henry Beston

==============

Well. Life pretty much guarantees that at one time or another you have to wonder whether you can truly handle the cards Life has dealt you that day, or moment, or whatever time period you are faced with this type of thinking. It is in moments like those that, despite being overwhelmed, we muddle through and recognize that most likely we have more than all any of these situations require.

It is good that we acknowledge this and remind ourselves on occasion of this. You don’t need to go back over time and dwell on every adverse situation or painful moment and how you were able to overcome it … in fact … I wouldn’t.

You don’t need to.

Why? You are still standing.

So going back and revisiting isn’t necessary. You did what you had to do … and you made it through.

In fact … maybe the only moment you should dwell on is the here and now … and the power of human spirit which got you to the here and now.

For in that moment you may be able to gain a glimpse of yourself. The glimpse which reveals you as the pilgrim of hope … the one who navigates Life voyaging across the eternal sea of time.

I will suggest that in just about every situation and circumstance in life you really do have more than is required to not only deal with what’s happening … but also to continue on your voyage through Life.

Anyway. “Pilgrims of hope” … oh my … what a wonderful thought. A spectacular thought as you think about how you have navigated the adversity in your life.

Feeling overwhelmed is feeling overwhelmed. We all feel it at some point. We don’t dwell on hope for something better … yet … we manage the moment and move on toward what we do hope for … something better. You simply navigate Life <albeit it doesn’t feel simple in the moment>.

“I may still not know what I want to be when I grow up, but I do know that someday I want to live in a house filled with my books and travel souvenirs. And the walls that aren’t covered in bookshelves will be covered with photos of my family and friends. When I leave the house I will be going to a job I love,
and I’ll return to a person I love. So, that’s the dream I’m working on.”

Amber Morley

Look. We are all working on some dream. We are all pilgrims of hope. And we all wonder <at least at some point> if we will be able to navigate Life.

Maybe we should take a moment and instead see the glimpse of ourselves as one who HAS navigated through Life … because we are in the here & now <we made it thus far> and are continuing the voyage.

“Truth itself is an emergent distinction. It’s not a noun; it’s more of a verb.”

Peter Joseph

——————–

I had the privilege to speak with some high school students on a variety of topics … & opinions, facts & truth came up (as, of course, opinions & beliefs were being discussed). I got to share 1 of my favorite quotes.

Look. Far too often we speak of truths in absolutes and, even worse, suggest an individual fact represents truth. Both of these things are actually the nemesis of truth.

Truths are dependent upon knowledge and, well, knowledge is not only contextual to situations but is also evolving as new learning occurs. In other words, truth is emergent.

And for those who state they stand on a fact as truth, to mangle a Dr. Jason Fox thought, “conviction means you become a convict to something.”An individual fact, tightly held, is simply a cage in which you are the convict holding tight on to a conviction of which the only way you get freed is to actually let go of that conviction and seek numerous facts and the knowledge that comes along with them.

In general, when speaking of truth, we should all be annoyed with specificity and simplicity. What I mean by that is a layered truth demands more than the simplistic specificity that can be found in one, individual, fact. Let me define how i view facts, knowledge and truth (and their relationship).

Facts. Facts are everywhere. an individual fact is nice to know but, in isolation, does not represent a full truth.

An absence of a fact is typically the root of any conspiracy theory (or false argument). “There is no proof, it is not” never trumps “there is proof that it is.”

Truth. Truth is a coherence of knowledge (combinations of facts) into a cohesive unit of facts. This means that truth adapts to changing knowledge (not individual facts).

While I’m not sure I got it all exactly right i do believe i was able to get some young people to understand one fact is simply a step toward truth and that truth, itself, is layered and often complex.

This leads me to the societal nemesis of truth – this whole ‘anti-intellectualism’ thing. I honestly don’t understand the whole anti-intellectual thing. I have tried, but the tangled web eludes me. Its quite possible knowledge, which is exponentially different than common sense (which isn’t really that common), is caught up the whole “establishment is bad” thing.

It almost seems like every existing infrastructure, let’s call it ‘establishment’, is being painted as “bad, stupid & incompetent.’ And they are not. Saying all politicians are worthless, or media is all tainted and crooked, or all science is driven by a liberal agenda, is as bad as me saying all old white men are sexist, xenophobic asshats.

We treat establishment as if it is one big conspiracy theory which is a little out of my realm of belief. The victim of this odd attack on establishment and those who have real factual knowledge is, well, truth. Truth is dependent upon facts & knowledge well used and well-honed in the battlefield of thinking & thought. Without it the intellectual debate resides on the superficial surface of anything meaningful.

“Is being an investigator the opposite of being an artist? Maybe it is just that some mysteries require an artist not an investigator. That an artist has different ways to get to the truth.”

Tibetan thought

Ponder this.

The path to truth is not just one path. Sure. I may know one ‘truth.’ But in knowing that I know … well … one thing. And I am sure many people are fine with the knowledge of one truth. And I do not begrudge them of that. For one truth is, at its core, a truth. And I believe everyone needs some truth in their life.

Does knowing more than one truth <if there truly is such a thing> make someone better? Yikes. I don’t believe I could be a good judge of that. Because knowing multiple truths can be confusing and in confusion someone just may not end up in a better place. I guess I would suggest that if multiple truths put you on more solid ground than go for it.

But the real point to this is that someone without YOUR knowledge is more likely to teach you something completely new than someone who shares your knowledge.

And, ultimately, if you are trying to understand the world, or simply solve a problem, to truly learn the answer you may have to turn your back on some things you know and face someone who knows some other facts, has some other knowledge and may even be able to share some new truths.

On a separate note (maybe on my mind because I was speaking with students).

I will say, as I discuss facts, knowledge & truth, I find the entire concept of ‘future-proof skills” absurd. There is no such thing as a future-proof skill. Okay. Maybe active learning (but I don’t think that is a skill). Which leads me to the thing that always makes me chuckle whenever I get pulled into some ‘future skills’ discussion. Its “Technique for Producing Ideas” by James Webb Young. Published in 1940 written by a man who developed these ‘skills’ in the 1920’s. The entire book is about ‘future-proofing skill development.” 1920’s. 1940. 2020. What was, is, and will be.

Anyway.

I would suggest that Truth is a puzzling maze for anyone to navigate — good person or bad person.

Facts come and go. We have as many of them floating around as stars in the sky.

Knowledge demands some creativity in combination of facts (think seeing constellations in a night sky), some hard work (to gather the most appropriate facts) and some wisdom (to discard less relevant facts).

So. This is about Life and tying things up with a colorful bow versus living with some <the> gray. Ok. Let’s call this ‘living with uncertainty.’

Well. Let me state a couple of obvious things about uncertainty. Uncertainty is a bitch. And uncertainty pretty much sums up about 99% of Life.

Bottom line?

Life is certainly uncertain <there is a conundrum>.

Guarantees are never guaranteed. A truth today can be very different than a truth from yesterday.

Control from one moment to the next is slippery, elusive and … well … uncertain … at best.

Now. Despite the fact I want to discuss Life, and gray, I will begin with the human eye because, well, it is interesting and it will help me make a point. The human eye is capable of seeing any shade of gray and a zillion different colors. Ok. Not a zillion. But, in total, the eye can distinguish over 500 shades of grey and over 2.7 million colors <although I found another source that suggested over 5 million colors>. <source: NZ Eye Institute>

By the way <let me digress>. I found it interesting that grey can also bring any color to life.

Apparently grey often contains other colors ranging from yellowish to orangey-brownish to purplish, bluish and greenish grays and, apparently, depending on what hue of gray you use their psychological effects on people can be quite different.

Anyway. I began there because gray has a bad rap in today’s world. Black & white have a significantly better reputation. It is unfortunate because Life exists mostly in a palette of grays. Yes. We live in a world of uncertainties and contextual truths of … well … grays. I imagine that makes ‘vivid color moments’ of clarity that much more special.

Conversely. It can be quite unsettling given the unfortunate fact the majority of time we dwell in the gray.

Looking back on my career, and Life, I have found I can live, if not feel quasi-comfortable, with uncertainty in most things.

Even decisions.

Huh? Well. Honestly a decision is most often a reflection of judgment. It is a choice between alternatives <none of which are solid blacks or whites>. Choices are rarely a simple choice between right and wrong. It is often at best a choice between ‘almost right’ and mostly likely a ‘probably wrong’. And much more often you are making a choice between two choices of which neither is probably more right than the other. This is because ‘right decisions’ tend to grow out of the friction and conflict of divergent thinking <sometimes just opinions> and out of contemplation and consideration of competing alternatives.

We make lots & lots of these decisions. Lots.

Compound that with a thought I read somewhere: ‘every decision is like surgery.’ While we may flippantly suggest that we make decisions and ‘move on’ more often it is an intervention into a system and therefore carries with it the risk of shock, pain & recovery.

Ouch.

This actually means that I receive a vivid, visceral, color response for making a gray decision.

Well. Welcome to Life. And maybe worse? <or at least something to think about>. Your decisions are dabbling in the shades of gray and yet you have to be committed to the decision <which will firmly place actions on a black or white path>, if you want any hope of progress.

Yup. Because, if you do not, nothing will change. You will end up endlessly wandering around outside that ‘box’ <because all the shades of gray actually reside in ‘out of the box thinking’ without any clear or vivid direction>. No one really tells you this, but all the vivid colors and vivid moments and vivid decisions in life actually reside inside the box.

It is inside the box you actually can be an adventurer.

It is inside the box that you make a stand. Make a commitment. Make a decision that provides a little spot color … a little bright light … to the box.

Just think about it a little.

You can go outside the box if you want to but you will most likely end up doing something that seems right to you and maybe feel good. But most likely only because you are outside the box all alone without anyone to criticize or even see. That’s not an adventure. An adventure is a complete experience.

It is inside the box where it happens.

—

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world.

For, indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Margaret Mead

—

In dealing with a shades of gray Life you do have to be adventuresome and committed.

I posted the above quote maybe in the first two days I started this whole enlightened conflict site thing. With life mostly made up of shades of gray it is really only the thoughtful committed people who have a chance to bring some color.

The color may not be appealing in some cases, but, who cares? I don’t like everything every small group of committed thoughtful people say or do <and in fact I sometimes, in weaker moments, question whether they are truly thoughtful and maybe they should be committed to some loony bin rather than trying to be people committed to something>.

But then I understand. I understand that their commitment makes me more thoughtful. And I am okay with that. They point out that life does reside in grays, but that greys DO contain other colors and bring colors to Life.

Anyway. In a world in which so much resides in shades of grey I tend to believe it pays to be thoughtful and less flippant about decisions particularly if it truly is an important decision <although I will admit sometimes it is difficult to discern the really important from just ‘the important’ … shit … the grey thing again>. Maybe it helps me to suggest that with so much grey we should remain committed to doing “what is the right thing to do” <versus what maybe everyone else is suggesting be done>.

Why? because it is truly the hope to building some aspect of color into the greys. And maybe that is where I am going with this rambling.

Enlightenment resides in discerning the hues of color found in the greys of Life. The vivid moments are so few and far apart that waiting for them, or investing an entire life to seeking them, means you miss out on the enlightenment life has to offer you. So maybe we should seek to be part of the thoughtful and committed small group of people who don’t bemoan the shades of grey but rather embrace the colors within … and thoughtfully tease the colors out for others to view.

Look. I tend to believe we try far too often to categorize things in black and white – in extremes and binaries. We do so in the attempt for clarity as well as to make it distinct and stand out.

Unfortunately, even with the good intentions, many times truth <and colors> lies somewhere in the middle — in the shades of gray as it were.

Good people can do bad things.

Bad people can do good things.

Bad ideas can end up in good places.

And colors can peek out between the many shades of gray.

Enlightenment can be found ‘in the box of gray’ if we would stop eying the random vivid elusive colors we envision somewhere outside the box.

Look. Inside the box may look a lot like a grey place to reside, but only if you don’t recognize that it is, in fact, within grays that colors reside.

“Toil and risk are the price of glory, but it is a lovely thing to live with courage and die leaving an everlasting fame.”

—-

Alexander the Great

=============

“The time is always right to do what is right.”

—-

Martin Luther King, Jr.

====================

“I would rather die right then live wrong.”

—–

Bruce McTague

====================

Well. I believe Alexander’s full quote was:

It is a lovely thing to live with great courage and to die leaving an everlasting fame,

Macedonians!… Why do you retreat?!… Do you want to live forever?!

In the name of Zeus!… ATTACK!

So. I tend to call this “selective thoughtful recklessness.” Yeah. I am not really sure something exactly like that exists but, whether it has a name or not, it is a characteristic of winners and ‘everlasting fame’ as well as a characteristic of everyday schmucks like me who want to do the right thing, desire some everlasting fame as in ‘known for doing good shit the right way’ and am willing to work hard for it <that is the ‘toil’ part>.

This may sound a little crazy, but I do believe if you are dedicated to doing the right thing and doing good shit you have to be comfortable assuming some risk.

Now.

I get some shit for my ‘comfort with assuming risk’ <I believe security is, if not an illusion, mostly a superstition keeping people scared of shit>, my attitude in general with regard to risk, and my general disdain for people who have the absurd principle of ‘making a decision instinctually.’ All that said. I came up with my own phrase – selective thoughtful recklessness. This combination seems to me to be better than simply being rash or foolhardy in behavior. It is better because I have a full respect for consequences and hold consequences in high regard.

To be clear. There is never any absence of forethought <which is where I typically find ‘instinct’ fails miserably>. I certainly have extreme care and concern with respect to not only other people’s welfare but my own. Sure, yes, there may be a bit of daredevil in the attitude but without the flair and debonair style associated with a daredevil.

What is there is a certain defiance to odds once a decision has been made and a complete “In for a penny, in for a pound” attitude. <Cambridge Dictionary: something you say that means that since you have started something or are involved in it, you should complete the work although it has become more difficult or complicated than you had expected >.

My epitaph will absolutely be “I had a lover’s quarrel with the world”, but my mantra seems to be captured in what I said upfront … “I would rather die right then live wrong.” That is not courage, nor is it an attitude, it is a choice that simply requires some mental resilience. You feel doubt, resistances to choice and even outright disagreement but someone who embraces the selective thoughtful recklessness remains mentally resilient towards anything that attempts to stop you from doing what you believe, and maybe even know, is right.

And maybe that is where the thoughtful daredevilishness steps in.

In order to find glory <in this case I believe glory is ‘doing what is right’ and not some fame or accolades> you have to first & foremost reframe the story of what is and what is possible. I am not suggesting some alternative universe nor am I suggesting fooling yourself into believing something truly impossible is possible. This is more along the lines of the traditional disruptor definition — seeing the conventional in unconventional ways. By reframing the story the boundaries & limits in the original story become new & different boundaries & limits. Rarely do they align with the old ones and it is within these differences that the ‘thoughtful reckless’ wander.

But this also demands one other thing.

Let’s call it ‘intense listening without attachment.’

What I mean by this is you have to be aware of everything going on around you, but you do not necessarily get attached to what is being said. It’s like recognizing the clutter around you and rummaging thru it for the useful and avoiding the useless. This would also include at least being aware of your own biases and trying to un-attach your listening from them as much as possible.

Lastly.

Here is maybe the most controversial thought I will share on finding glory.

Be small. Yeah. I just said ‘be small.’

To be clear. I don’t mean live a small Life but I do mean if you want to find the kind of glory I am discussing, and you want to be selectively thoughtfully reckless, and you want to die right rather than live wrong, you end up thinking about being an energy for ‘doing’ like an atom, or a pebble in a pond, where you make yourself as solidly, strongly and distinctly rightly small — and then choose your path. Thinking about that, well, maybe that is why I balk at ‘daredevil’ so much. It sounds big & flamboyant. I find that being defiantly, and successfully, right in your choice is more often found in the ‘toil’ — in the small stuff and avoiding the small stuff at the same time.

It is more about being solidly small in your solidly rightness.

========

“Let others lead small lives, but not you. Let others argue over small things, but not you. Let others cry over small hurts, but not you. Let others leave their future in someone else’s hands, but not you.”

Jim Rohn

================

And, yes, maybe it is about a small quiet courage found in the everyday.

Do I think I am courageous? Certainly not.

Resilient? Absolutely yes.

But this kind of resilience seems to contain a version of courage that is easy to miss. It is a small resilient courage.

It is the small courage you hold on to … to stay when it is easier to leave.

It is the small courage you hold on to … to keep doing when everything says ‘quit.’

It is the small courage you hold on to … to respect difference when we would much rather judge.

It is the small courage you hold on to … to accept some vulnerability when building a wall feels much safer.

It is the small courage you hold on to … to recognize your own agenda needs to be revised to accommodate another’s better idea.

It is the small courage you hold on to … everyday <even though it takes some ‘toil’ to create it>.

It is the small courage you hold on to … to not only become who we really are … but which enables the better version of who we are.

It is the small courage you hold on to … in a world that often doesn’t seem to encourage courageous everyday acts.

Anyway.

Life isn’t easy. Business isn’t easy. And navigating both shouldn’t be easy. All I can suggest is some selective thoughtful recklessness can help you out on occasion. I can also promise, when done well and with ‘good as an intent’, it gives you a shot at glory.

Just remember.

… it is a lovely thing to live with courage and die leaving an everlasting fame

Life often seems to challenge our capacity — time, energy, emotional and physical. Let’s just call it the ‘personal capacity challenge.” Personal capacity is a tricky topic. Tricky in that there is no standard measure of ‘capacity’from which to measure oneself against.

In addition, capacity expands and contracts depending on who and what is filling the capacity space.

In addition, you can add in the variable of the circumstances with which capacity is dealing with which affects whatever space capacity maintains in oneself.

Oh. And I am speaking of emotional capacity to “deal” as in deal with life — both the mind numbing blows life can deliver and the everyday stuff life stabbing you day in and day out.

And then there are the times when Life gives you any and all at the same time.

Regardless. Life demands that each and everyone of us maintain some sense of capacity.

Well. I imagine this is what I am writing about. Because we all have capacity and we all have capacity enough to handle and manage the typical everyday shit.

However.

It is ‘those times’ I am speaking of … when you look at someone and look at the crappy cards Life has dealt them during some finite period of time.

This finite time represents a small space in which you feel no one should have to bear that much of a burden. And despite the fact I wish I were referring to some theoretical aspect of Life, I am not. Unfortunately Life has a habit of asking some people to carry some fairly burdensome burdens within finite periods of time.

It is one of the unfortunate inherent duties of Life.

—

“Life is not theory.

It is reality, with inherent duties to everything and everyone.”

Tivadar Csontváry Kosztka

—

Now. Despite the fact each of us assumes this duty differently every one of us has a different emotional capacity. It’s kind of like walking into the Container Store with aisle after aisle of different shaped, different sized and different ‘strength’ material in its makeup. I say that because I believe we often judge others by either:

(a)

ourselves, or

(b)

what we believe someone’s capacity should be

<which is driven by culture, media, societal expectations>.

We shouldn’t.

And, frankly, we really cannot judge … unless you can place yourself in someone else’s shoes.

Why? Capacity is multidimensional. It is driven by experience and … well … just your own make up.

Some people just deal with all the various stuff well, and some don’t, and some get better as time goes on <although I would actually argue that everyone gets better at ‘dealing’ the more practice they get> and some just have no, or little, capacity.

Life tests our personal capacity all the time.

We currently live in a Life culture, personal & work, that places ever more stress on the individual to achieve and to do more with less, to work longer hours, to make a greater change to the world <and to themselves>, people often find themselves pushed beyond the limits of what they can endure.

And that is just the common everyday stuff.

The ‘unexpected’ Life test isn’t even included.

Inevitably this all leads to personal stress which is actually a physical response to situations. It’s your body trying to find a way through a challenging time. Obviously, ongoing stress actually has an effect on the way you think.

But here is the deal with capacity. Conceptually it is infinite <although we know it is finite>. Let me explain. This concept versus reality issue comes crashing to Life only when we get to the point that we can’t cope with, well, the fact we know we can’t cope anymore. It’s not hard to see in many cases of a meltdown what you’re looking at is someone who maxed out on their capacity. They got so far in the hole that there was no way of getting out.

“Sometimes we don’t know our own strength. It can be hard to tell just how much weight you can safely bear, or how much will crush you.

I’d like to think you can shoulder as big a burden as you believe you can, that it’s all a matter of will. Certainly a comforting thought.

Other times it’s hard to remember you had any strength at all. Then you can only hope to have someone to remind you … you were once fierce and able.”

Everwood

—

There has been some well done research studies on his topic.

===

In the 1980s, Howard Gardner outlined the presence of seven domains of intelligence; two of them were interpersonal and intrapersonal – these combined were the forerunner of what we now know as emotional intelligence.

The term was first coined by Peter Salovey, professor and psychologist at Yale University, and John Mayer, professor and psychologist at the University of New Hampshire.

In 1995 Daniel Goleman, the leading expert in this field, reported “IQ is only a minor predictor of success in life, while emotional and social skills are far better predictors of success and well-being than academic intelligence.”

Daniel Goleman’s research on social and emotional competencies in his 1995 book Emotional Intelligence, brought this concept into a much needed focus.

Goleman’s work teaches us that children’s emotional and social skills can be cultivated, so that the child will accrue both short-term and long-term advantages in regard to well-being, performance and success in life.

He outlines crucial emotional competencies basic to social and emotional learning:

===

– Self and other awareness:

Understanding and identifying feelings; knowing when one’s feelings shift; understanding the difference between thinking, feeling and acting; and understanding that one’s actions have consequences in terms of others’ feelings.

Emotional Capacity is the facility of our personality and feelings and how they engage with our mental processes and the reality of the world around us.

The various aspects of our emotional capacity is the level of emotional stress we can endure, our ability to monitor our emotions and our skill at modifying our emotions – meaning our ability to eradicate emotions that are dangerous, counter-productive or illogical to have and our ability to foster positive emotions and joy when it is logical or appropriate to do so.

And a person’s emotional capacity is actually a function of their emotional intelligence.

===

I say all this because many people are quite content to feel what they feel and perhaps as an afterthought to think about what they had felt.

<whew … I had to reread that a couple of times>

Let me try to say it this way. Few people consciously cultivate their emotional capacity, i.e., consciously developing the power of their rational mind on what is appropriate to feel and at what intensity.

Honestly I can see why people don’t.

You don’t know what you don’t know.

=

A soldier doesn’t know how he/she will act & perform in battle.

A mother doesn’t know how she will feel if her child dies.

A pet owner doesn’t know how he/she will feel when their long time companion dies.

=

It is the actual experience that tests the boundary of capacity.

That said. All this personal experience means that you can control your capacity as long as you can control, well, ‘self’. And I imagine that begins with understanding ‘self.’ What I mean by that is something called ‘understanding your emotional triggers’ or by increasing your awareness of them.

An emotional trigger is an experience that draws us back into the past and causes old feelings and behaviors to arise.

<For example, an ice cream sandwich may remind you of your childhood summer vacations, or gossiping coworkers could bring back images of high school cliques.>

Some triggers are situational and some are social.

Some people smoke more when they are out for drinks with friends.

Most people tend to eat more at holiday or family gatherings.

And then there are internal triggers.

Anyway. Bottom line? Just recognize the fact that we all have triggers. And triggers are individual <often>.

I added this because we tend to try and help people we care for based on our own experiences. That leads to using our own ‘triggers’ as guide posts for what we say, suggest and support our beliefs with.

That can be a mistake.

People can react differently to the exact same stimulus. Taking such variety into account improves communications and relationships.

I share all of this because if you recognize your emotional triggers you are better able to manage <or at least know> your capacity, but not necessarily others.

Lastly.

Help.

No matter how strong someone is, how resilient, how whatever … sometimes capacity is stretched to a break point. Or at least close to your capacity’s … well … capacity.

First.

Therapy is not a swear word. Nor is it any sign of weakness. It is simply a sign that you want to get to a better place … by any and all means necessary. The right professional help may make a big difference.

Second.

A strong support network. Close family and friends are absolutely vital to feeling validated and nurtured. When you’re dealing with stubborn issues, it’s always a comfort to know that you have people who care about you and want to help you.

Ok.

All that research and professional thinking aside.

As noted earlier capacity is multi-dimensional. There is capacity within a moment and capacity within the accumulation of moments. And your personal capacity can often be defined <managed> by pushing through and not dwelling.

Sure. Someone could suggest pushing through <or not dwelling> is simply a defense mechanism, i.e., a way of not dealing, a process of ignoring.

Ok. But not dwelling is not the same as not reflecting. Not dwelling simply suggests not lingering too long in that ‘capacity moment.’ Therefore I simply suggest that it is all about pushing through the moment. And you know why you push through these moments and choices?

Because while certain choices define the future direction of your life, choices do not end then & there.

Choices beget choices.

You will then get even more choices, maybe littler ones, but little nudge choices to course correct or make sure the original choice gets aligned optimally for whatever you really decided.

But that is part of capacity.

Despite all this ‘pushing thru’ all these choices and decisions are stored away in your head. And sometimes that doesn’t leave a lot of room for other stuff … grief … happiness … sadness … whatever … it is just all tangled up. And all this choosing shit I am talking about inevitably creates stress … stress on the system <you overall> and stress mentally.

And stress does funny things to us <and our capacity>.

But so do circumstances beyond our control <which I imagine is linked to stress in some way>. We all have a limit as to how far events can push us before something within us pushes back.

But. The thing is most of us never know that limit until we reach it.

—-

“Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards.”

Vernon Sanders Law

—-

This Life capacity test is a hard and brutal teacher.

I imagine anyone’s capacity would be challenged if you spent too much time trying to untangle all the stuff stored in your head. But I honestly am not sure it is worth the energy to try and untangle shit. You should maybe just look at the highlights, maybe invest some energy untangling any knots that are truly restrictive, and move on.

Now.

There are certainly moments in time when Life truly tests your capacity – grief, sadness, unhappiness in combination with typical Life demands – and it fills you up to overflowing if not exploding.

I have seen people deal in moments like this and frankly, I am often in awe. I am not sure I would have the capacity. But what I do know is that I see these people take on the capacity tests and those who succeed <not fail the tests> just don’t dwell too long <and too long is defined person by person> and just push through before the burdens of the moment become so heavy they cannot move to push through.

Moving from those moments shifts you as a person.

Call it ‘a passage in life.’

You see the world and yourself differently after you’ve gone through the events and emotional states that define each passage. Not stronger or weaker different, just different. These passages are emotionally and cognitively intense … as a result you fundamentally change as a person.

I am not saying better or worse … you just change.

All that said. Maybe that is what I should have said upfront: personal capacity is often defined by dwelling versus pushing through.

Because in the end, if you dwell, you get squeezed.

In America’s ‘just do it’ mentality we tend to squeeze our capacity almost irresponsibly <despite the fact we believe we are being quite responsible & selfless with our capacity>. I recognize irresponsible is a tough word, but, for a group of people who like planning, milestones and objectives we seem to leave no space for the unforeseen.

We just fill it all up to capacity.

Fill up everything including time, emotion and mental space. This creates emotional capacity challenges <because trying to do everything on our physical list also puts demands on our mental capacity … it is sometimes called ‘stress’>. And by emotional capacity challenges I mean things like grief & unhappiness … the sudden demands that Life puts on you mentally that create capacity challenges. These individual things stress an already ‘filled to the brim’ capacity creating chaos <by overloading the already 24/7 planned and mentally filled> life>.

What this means is that you either “don’t have time” to deal or have to “make time’ to deal all of which exponentially stretches an already maxed out capacity <or what you assume is maxed out>. All of this happening at a time when some focus would most likely help diffuse or diminish the challenges.

I mention all that to say we are often our own worst enemy with regard to capacity. We have immense capacity. More often than not more than what we believe.

However. That doesn’t mean it is limitless. It is finite. Why test the limits?

In the end?

—

“Lacking even paper

I write on my heart

turned inside out.

That is why it squeaks

at night like the earth’s axis

that turns me face to face

with the impossible.” –

=

Regina Derieva

—-

Our world squeaks as it constantly turns us toward being face to face with the impossible.

And, yet, face it we do.

And in doing so we constantly embrace our capacity.

Just don’t enjoy the embrace too much. Because personal capacity is often defined by dwelling versus pushing through. And dwelling is bad.

Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “throw away” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.

========================

This is about jobs., working, productivity and meaning. I will begin by leveraging off the opening quote and discuss exclusion & inclusion.

Exclusion in work is working in a detached way. You are not really being exploited you are just scraps in the business world. The ones doing the “mindless work.” Unfortunately, disengagement numbers suggest a shitload of people feel like they are in this category.

Inclusion in work, to me, is meaning or finding ‘joy in the task.’

In 1949 Harry F Harlow, Professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin, outlined an alternative … something he called ‘intrinsic motivation’: “The performance of the task provided intrinsic reward. The joy of the task was its own reward.”

Beyond motivation this idea is also linked to productivity. Inclusion matters because economic knowledge exists in bits & pieces within an organization scattered amongst systems, process & people. This means value creation is often a dynamic discovery process, not a more static system driven process. In other words. The more workers are included in the discovery process the more dynamic the value creation.

Contribution.

Meaning at work truly comes down to one thing – contribution. What I mean by that is, if the response to your job/doing (the stimulus) is “I have contributed” <with tangible proof or intangible reward>, you will have meaning. Now. Meaning can come to you in a variety of degrees – all powerful in their own way, but in totality is most likely attaining the highest order of contribution.

The most basic is “I” have just become better. This is an internalization of personal improvement suggesting “I am not stagnant, I am growing.” The second phase is if you view that your ‘growth’ has contributed to the people most important to you – your team, tribe or department. The third phase is to the organization itself. Something you have done, like a pebble in a pond sending out ripples, has contributed to the larger success of the organization & business. It makes one part of the ‘productivity enterprise’ so one doesn’t feel inconsequential even if the enterprise is massive. Lastly, is society or community or global. Your little contribution was part of a big contribution positively affecting someone, or some-ones, outside the selling aspect of your business.

Progress.

Simplistically, we all want to get better. Better at being a person, our skills, socially, professionally, for our kids, morally, etc. Therefore. The progress measurement is most likely, at its simplest, “better today than I was yesterday, better tomorrow than I am today.” I am not a motivation expert, but if I set up a feedback loop to show this to a worker <doesn’t have to be daily but maybe weekly at minimum> then a worker sees progress tied to ‘contribution’ <value & meaning increase with this alignment>.

To be clear. This is different than milestones, sprints & any measured activity. While those things can be useful to get things done, they do not insure meaningful progress. They are completion checkmarks and meaning needs progress checkmarks.

Decision utility.

To me decision utility, especially when it comes to workplace productivity, is a mix of doing & thinking. Most people focus on the doing aspect of decision utility, but I believe everyone likes to ‘think’ in terms of ‘my thoughts matter’ <the harsher version is “I know I’m not stupid and having my thinking contribute to what I do and we do proves I am not”>.

That said. It was Clotaire Rapaille who pointed out in America our heroes are athletes, entrepreneurs, police officers, firefighters, and soldiers – all people who take action. We may respect thinkers, but we don’t celebrate them nearly as much as we do our ‘doers’. As Rapaille said: the American Culture Code for work is WHO YOU ARE. We often seek so much meaning in our jobs, if our job feels meaningless, then “who we are” is meaningless as well <at least in some dimension>. If we feel inspired by our job, if we believe that we are doing something worthwhile in our work, that belief bolsters our sense of identity in that we feel like we have some grander Purpose.

Our work ethic is so strong because at the unconscious level, we believe that if we work hard and improve our professional standing, we become better people <note: that’s not particularly healthy but its good to recognize it>.

I bring in work ethic because this is where game theory plays a role (Jason Fox speaks of game theory as a way of viewing employee motivation). As a reminder, I see decision utility as in thinking & doing. Thinking as in ‘solving a complex issue/problem AND doing something about it.” I first began discussing game theory in 2010 when crafting critical thinking games for children. The fact kids like thinking & game theory ratchets up complexity of problems sequentially as one is solved. Critical thinking at its most basic level is trial & error. However. Game theory also ‘dials down’ complexity to insure one doesn’t get too frustrated with failure. A child gets rewarded for failed attempts as well as successful attempts. In other words, you get value off of decision utility where marginal units are rewarded with higher value <and standard units get rewarded despite failed attempts>. I envision workers would respond just as positively to this activity – a combination of thinking and doing to create some progress.

Lastly, with regard to decision utility, let me lean into ‘marginal units‘ and the economic concept of marginalism. The fact that prices don’t correspond to the total value of all goods in existence, but rather the marginal unit (the value of the next unit>. I am not a behavior expert, but I would suggest meaning in work would seem to be of more value to the worker if they were constantly being rewarded for the marginal unit and not just the costs of doing.

Lastly.

Values.

I was tempted to call this ethics, but I tend to believe work is more meaningful when it feel substantive of values (to increase value) and virtue (which is a feeling outcome of doing things with value substance).

“Striving to meet the deepest moral needs of the person also has important and beneficial repercussions at the level of economics. The economy needs ethics in order to function correctly — not any ethics whatsoever, but an ethics which is people-centred.”

Vatican (encyclical Caritas in Veritate)

Values is, well, the good stuff that infuses all the doing and thinking. As I have said numerous times before, winning the right way creates the highest satisfaction possible <versus just winning>. People feel ‘fuller progress’ if they know they did it ethically, within the rules/laws & with a sense of dignity. I could suggest this values orieneted work feeds the moral soul, but I will not. I will just say we sleep better at night when we do it this way.

Anyway.

Self management permits the internal to be maximized on an individual basis permitting the whole, the business itself, to intervene with regard to eternal problems. This matters because the most basic economic problem is allocation – how the business can allocate its scare resources so as to best serve the interests of the business as a whole. Business should seek to maximize its people resources, minds & bodies, t maximize its inherent other scarce resources.

This leads me to systems & processes (often called best practices) which are based on restrictive assumptions to create an equilibrium between inputs & outputs for efficiencies.

If the individual is empowered to maximize their productive (on all measures listed above) the internal maximization of resources naturally occurs so that the organization itself can assess external challenges which may demand resources. This ying & yang insures maximum use of people, process & resources.

So. Here is what I think.

We are a doing people. People inherently enjoy thinking & doing and when it is visible <showing progress> we actually derive meaning. As a corollary, When our doing doesn’t seem to offer value, or meaning, it strikes at us emotionally – in a negative way. Our soul is in doing. We find our way by saying “let’s go to work” on something. This includes even pursing the seemingly impossible. Because in the end we are dreamers. We do because we dream and dream big, i.e., give us an impossible assignment and let us go do it.

For in the end, for all the culture code speak and thoughts about what makes us happy, People are pretty simple. We like making the impossible possible. And that is what makes People, well, People. At the heart of dreams and making the impossible possible is, well, doing. In the end I struggle to find a better meaningful value than “doing a dream.”